P L D 2000 Quetta 40 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976), Ss.3 & 4‑‑‑Contempt of Court proceedings‑‑‑Concurrent findings of fact‑‑‑Both the Courts below concurrently dismissed the proceedings initiated against the respondents‑‑ Interference in revision‑‑‑Petitioner agitated the same grounds which were argued before the Lower Appellate Court‑‑‑Concurrent findings of facts arrived at by Courts below could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction as in revision finding of fact could not be looked into except in case of glaring illegality‑‑‑Neither any legal flaw, nor any illegality was pointed out in the orders of both the Courts below‑‑ Revision was dismissed in circumstances. JUDGMENT This Revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. is directed against the order, dated 12‑6‑1998 of the learned Additional District Judge V, Quetta by which he dismissed the appeal against the order, dated 8‑1‑1998 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Quetta, whereby the application which was filed by the petitioner under section 3/4 of Contempt of Court Act, 1976 was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that suit of the petitioner for specific performance was decreed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Quetta vide judgment and decree dated 21‑6‑1993. thereafter, the petitioner/decree holder filed an application for execution of abovementioned decree and in pursuance whereof, respondent No.2 attested mutation entry on 14‑12‑1996 and FARD INTIQAAL‑E‑JAMAHBANDI was also issued to the petitioner/decree‑holder on the same day. It is stated that on 30‑12‑1996 Tehsildar, Quetta has cancelled the earlier order of transfer of land in question for the reason that on account of mistake instead of Khasra No.7109 the mutation of Khasra No.7103 and 7104 had been carried out in favour of the petitioner/decree‑holder. An application under section 3/4 of Contempt of Court Act, 1976 was moved by the petitioner. It is stated that while reversing the mutation entry neither any notice was issued to the petitioner nor any permission was obtained from the Court concerned and it was alleged that respondent No.2 has flouted the judgment/decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge with ulterior motive. It was contended that while cancelling the mutation entry attested in favour of the petitioner/decree holder on 14‑12‑1996 the respondent No.2 has rendered himself liable for initiation of proceedings of Contempt of Court. It was accordingly prayed that respondent No.2 be summoned and contempt proceedings be initiated against him. This application was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge on 8‑1‑1998 which reads as under:‑‑ Thereafter, an appeal under section 104 of C.P.C. was filed against the said order by the petitioner. The learned Additional District Judge‑IV; Quetta after hearing learned counsel for the parties and examination of the record dismissed the appeal and did not find any fault with the impugned order and upheld the same. This order is the subject‑matter of present revision' petition.

3. I have heard the arguments of both the counsel for the parties.

4. Admittedly in revision only the legal points are to be discussed and not the factual aspect. The factual side is already decided by the trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court and there are concurrent findings by both the Courts below and had not proposed to initiate contempt of Court proceedings against Tehsildar, Quetta under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1976. The grounds agitated before this Court are almost the same which were argued before the Appellate Court. No legal flaw has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has also failed to point out any illegality in the orders of the Courts below. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by Courts below cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction as in revision finding of the fact cannot be looked into except glaring illegality, if any, which has not been pointed out in the instant case. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that the execution application was disposed of by the learned Senior Civil Judge on 15‑2‑1997. The order reads as under:‑‑ There is also mention of the said order in the order of dismissal of the application by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Quetta on 8‑1‑1998. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity or illegality for reversing the concurrent findings of Courts below.

5. In view of the above discussion the petition has no force which is accordingly dismissed. No order as‑to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./3/Q Revision dismissed.